kaminaowner2 t1_isbz4z6 wrote
Reply to comment by TheCrimsonDagger in FREE ELECTRICITY! Credit Suisse analysis says Inflation Reduction Act will produce solar modules for two pennies a watt in Ohio, while federal tax credits will cover 50% of project costs. by manual_tranny
It actually makes sense, you still are dependent on the grid but pay nexts to nothing a month for its upkeep. A fee of some form is needed to make sure we have power when it’s cloudy. And power lines cost money to fix. 90 bucks sucks but most people pay 200 ish a month so it’s still worth the cost.
Substantial_City4618 t1_isd28kn wrote
90 dollars to maintain a inefficient system when I have my own power? Fuck that I’ll just buy a generator and disconnect.
kaminaowner2 t1_isd7g8h wrote
If you can go for it, most states it’s illegal to go off grid, that said I know my state Oklahoma has no laws against it so look up your local state laws
Substantial_City4618 t1_iserw3o wrote
The fact it’s illegal to go off the grid in some states, should be a political conversation of a lot more importance.
“If I’m supporting it with a local monopoly and often with tax dollars, do I have support it with my after tax dollars under penalty of the law?”
UnderstandingSquare7 t1_isdb3jl wrote
That's a utility argument. The counter might be: As society goes increasingly solar, the utility is required to produce less power, which cuts down on their operating costs (they're buying and burning something to move those turbines!). Encouraging more solar with low or no fees, or renewables in general, lowers the stress on utility plant, and in the long run is an investment itself. The solar owners are actually bearing more of the cost of future operations and maintenance, instead of the utility.
the8thbit t1_isdlu1h wrote
It's blatantly anticompetitive. If you need to charge an upkeep fee, then it should be spread across all customers. Upkeep costs the same from the company's perspective whether you generate your power largely from your own panels, or if you depend entirely on the power company. Up charging customers who decide to replace one of your services should be illegal, and in many cases, it is.
Imagine if Microsoft started charging anyone who sets their default browser to anything but Edge $5/mo for service updates. "It actually makes sense, because it costs money to develop and distribute updates!" They'd be laughed right out of court with that defense.
In most cases, what the power companies are doing is even more indefensible. They're generally regional monopolies and an some states you're required to do business with them if you want to not be homeless. At least with Windows there are alternative operating systems.
kaminaowner2 t1_isdxi5y wrote
The electric system has to become a subscription service, the grid can’t be replaced, and can’t be repaired for free. Unless we find a magic way to fix the grid their has to be a minimum charge. It’s not anti competition because you aren’t competing with the electric company, your dependent on it. Wake up and recognize we have to work together still in order for this solar thing to work, you charge my house when it’s dark here, I charge yours later.
Open-Gazelle-3774 t1_isf28gj wrote
Before we have to pay that $90 fee we should be given the option to go off grid… I have to batteries and a gen. I would rather go off then pay close to half of what my normal electric bill would be. A $10-15 monthly fee I understand but $90?
kaminaowner2 t1_isf6e2z wrote
I do believe the amount is to high, it also is different state by state. Going off grid is nice but does cut into the promise of solar, you charge my house when it’s dark here, and I charge yours when it’s dark there, and we both charge the city’s. We need more humans working together not more going our own way, but there is room for some of us to cut ties, just not all or even most.
the8thbit t1_isfj7qj wrote
>The electric system has to become a subscription service, the grid can’t be replaced, and can’t be repaired for free.
Of course. So charge everyone the same subscription fee. Why should solar panel owners be forced to bear a larger portion of the cost for the same service that everyone gets?
>It’s not anti competition because you aren’t competing with the electric company, your dependent on it.
You can be both dependent on a company, and competing with them. Chrome is (mostly) dependent on an operating system ecosystem provided by Microsoft. That doesn't mean Google and Microsoft aren't competitors, and if Microsoft instituted fees for installing Chrome, that would be blatantly anticompetitive.
A home solar operator sells power to people (themselves and their other nearby people on the grid) when its more economical to get it from them than from the power company. The home solar operator gets that money, and the power company does not. If the home solar operator didn't exist, the power company would be getting that money as they wouldn't have to compete with the solar operator. Home solar installations take customers away from power companies. That's about as cut and dry competition as it gets.
JimC29 t1_isdxj8u wrote
I only spend over $60 on electricity in July and August. My heat and hot water are gas though. June is usually in the 60s.
kaminaowner2 t1_isdy2m9 wrote
If you pay for gas you have to include that charge to the savings, because us electric folk don’t pay for that. Also I’m guessing you’re in the north (most gas users are) it’s cheaper to hear a house than cool one. You’re fellow southern citizens use more energy in general than you.
JimC29 t1_isdyb7q wrote
Midwest. My heating bills in the winter are are 30-50 a month. I also have insulated my house very well including all new windows.
I know I'm on the very low end of energy use in my area. I'm just saying the fee would be more than I spend on electricity throughout the year.
kaminaowner2 t1_isdyved wrote
In theory the fee would be less their too, idk how your state works (some don’t have any fee yet) but it’ll be different state by state, California is a crazy place compared to the mid west.
Telemere125 t1_iseubrh wrote
That doesn’t make sense at all, especially on grid-tie systems. They’re still charging non-solar customers the normal rate to use my solar-generated energy even tho I’m the one paying for it’s upkeep with my panels. So when solar energy is used by a non-solar customer, it’s been paid for twice and when I, a solar customer, use non-solar energy, im still paying for the normal rate. A “convenience” charge is specifically only there to discourage solar installs
kaminaowner2 t1_isf5vp4 wrote
I don’t believe it needs to be 90 dollars, but it’s a fact not a opinion solar is becoming both more popular,efficient,cheaper. When the average American is selling energy energy becomes worth less, but the systems in which that energy travels still has value and need. Maybe it would be 8 dollars or less but there is a price minimum we have to create in order to pay real people to take care of infrastructure we all use, it’s no different than the road.
Telemere125 t1_isf6lad wrote
Yea but if the solar is becoming less valuable per kWh and there’s more of it, then the power company shouldn’t need to generate as much on their own or buy as much from other sources. We’re seeing the exact opposite happen - they just raised rates in the SE US by 60% in May. So their claim is that power is currently costing us more to generate, not less.
kaminaowner2 t1_isf87qe wrote
There is a lot of underhanded deals and agreements that need to stop, I’m not saying there is no corruption because there definitely is, my only point was we need to pay something still to pay for the shiny new grid we need to go with all this space age technology. I personally was gonna buy some land and throw some solar panels on it, but turns out my state’s electric company has a legal agreement to buy most it’s energy from one oil company, so they informed me they’d pay me for 3c for every 17 worth of electricity I made, ya they wanted to make a 82% profit. I understand how unfair they are.
Telemere125 t1_isfxv5a wrote
That, plus they’re really not upgrading any of the grid. Sure, new developments get new lines but that’s all built into the cost of the neighborhood; and they replace lines when they’re knocked down, but part of the reason we’ve seen all these fires out west is precisely because they aren’t upgrading anything properly. And plenty of people can’t or won’t go solar - even if we get off fossil fuels entirely - so those people can spend on the incoming power they use and support the grid cost. This is also the reason all utilities should be government-run. Yes, government has its own share of problems, but they’re not profit-centered.
kaminaowner2 t1_isg5tj8 wrote
Ya I’d personally make the grid as a government issue, our taxes should cover it the same way we cover the roads, but I don’t buy people against solar will never go solar, they said the same stuff about LED bulbs and now it’s the norm, and here in the American south where I live solar is popping up everywhere on houses. I think in 10-20 years solar will just be common on new houses the way microwaves are.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments